Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

It's not possible for me to turn into a Bigfoot denialist. Becoming a denialist/ex-proponent requires a certain set of thinking patterns that I just don't have. It also requires one to be unsure of the existence of Sasquatch and to be disappointed with the available evidence, which I'm not.

It's not possible for me to turn into a Bigfoot denialist. Becoming a denialist/ex-proponent requires a certain set of thinking patterns that I just don't have. It also requires one to be unsure of the existence of Sasquatch and to be disappointed with the available evidence, which I'm not.

We've established that there can be no denialism about sasquatch, since the scientific consensus is that there is no such thing.

What available evidence? The anecdotes? The ones that don't jive with the PGF?

__________________ "There is a plenty of proof, but unfortunately it is entirely unprovable." - Punshhh
"There’s a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an idiot." – Stephen Wright

__________________Looking forward to the Trump Presidential Library. A putting green. Recipes for chocolate cake. A live Twitter feed for visitors to post on. A little black book w the phone numbers of porn stars. You're in and out in five minutes.

It's not possible for me to turn into a Bigfoot denialist. Becoming a denialist/ex-proponent requires a certain set of thinking patterns that I just don't have. It also requires one to be unsure of the existence of Sasquatch and to be disappointed with the available evidence, which I'm not.

As had been pointed out, this is a good thing.

__________________Looking forward to the Trump Presidential Library. A putting green. Recipes for chocolate cake. A live Twitter feed for visitors to post on. A little black book w the phone numbers of porn stars. You're in and out in five minutes.

There's almost endless possibilities and even though most of them are unlikely, they're still possibilities and they can't be dismissed. Even if one accepts the controversial idea that an absence of evidence is evidence of absence, the reality is that there's still no way to know for sure without positive proof of existence. It's worth mentioning that the standard for scientific proof can be different from people's own standards.

There's almost endless possibilities and even though most of them are unlikely,

Trolling word games. I don't know for sure that a monkey won't fly out of my butt today, so . . .

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

Even if one accepts the controversial idea that an absence of evidence is evidence of absence,

It's not controversial if evidence for the thing in question has been sought but not found. This is the case for bigfoot, in which bigfooters have been trying to prove its existence for at least the past 50 years, and the whole of North American settlement and exploration has turned up thousands of species, none of which are bigfoot. Don't even get me started on the absence of such a creature from the fossil record . . .

Yes, there is overwhelming scientific consensus that there is no such thing as bigfoot. (Recall that I am a scientist who studies wild animals.)

There's almost endless possibilities and even though most of them are unlikely, they're still possibilities and they can't be dismissed. Even if one accepts the controversial idea that an absence of evidence is evidence of absence, the reality is that there's still no way to know for sure without positive proof of existence. It's worth mentioning that the standard for scientific proof can be different from people's own standards.

There are not endless possibilities. There are patterns and ecological rules. Possibilities should be reasonable. Sasquatch makes no sense in his alleged environment.

The scientific method is all we have to evaluate claims. Other standards are useless and can be dismissed summarily.

Also, the anecdotes don't jive with the PGF. Believing either is ludicrous. There is no word strong enough to qualify the inanity of believing both.

__________________ "There is a plenty of proof, but unfortunately it is entirely unprovable." - Punshhh
"There’s a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an idiot." – Stephen Wright

There's almost endless possibilities and even though most of them are unlikely, they're still possibilities and they can't be dismissed.

Footie can be dismissed. It has been, in fact.

Quote:

Even if one accepts the controversial idea that an absence of evidence is evidence of absence, the reality is that there's still no way to know for sure without positive proof of existence. It's worth mentioning that the standard for scientific proof can be different from people's own standards.

The absence of evidence for a biological entity that would necessarily leave loads of it is indeed evidence of absence. This has been explained to you on several threads, including this one.

__________________Looking forward to the Trump Presidential Library. A putting green. Recipes for chocolate cake. A live Twitter feed for visitors to post on. A little black book w the phone numbers of porn stars. You're in and out in five minutes.

The point is that even with today's superior design and technology, they can't re-create her. Look how flat the breasts are.

As far as I'm aware, the undertaking of that suit wasn't done by NASA or anything, it was done by Philip Morris, so I'm unsure why our advancement in technology would matter one iota. Also, it's interesting that you mention the flat breasts, as though nothing of the sort exists naturally. Unless you go out with a page 3 model from the British tabloids then surely you'd realize that Patty's unmoving breasts that appear partway down her chest aren't natural, either.

So a guy with a dubious past decides to shoot a bigfoot movie. He has a friend dress up in an Indian costume but they don't have a bigfoot costume for this bigfoot movie. Later they are out not far from a logging road in an area frequented by a bigfoot track hoaxer. Without trying, they stumble upon a real bigfoot and shoot a few seconds of footage. When they get back home, the guy parades the film around like PT Barnum complete with an actor portraying his sidekick. The original film is then lost. Attempting to gather more evidence of bigfoot, they guy tries to return to the original location but misses it by 8000 miles.

They're intelligent, paranoid and extremely stealthy, but not invisible. Clear and up close sightings are extremely rare and 99% of the time they happen inside a forest and don't allow for people to get any kind of good footage. It usually happens very quickly and witnesses with no experience are usually too shocked to worry about getting pictures or video. If it happened frequently enough, we would probably have more footage like the PGF.

One or two reports of Bigfoot doing something unique doesn't necesarily mean they're doing it. What if those several reports are hoaxes?

So based upon "facts" you state above, 99% could be written off as mistaken identities since they happen so fast...and the other 1% describe things that are too ridiculous to believe???? So we're done here, right?

ETA: If it is, please link to any published study that proves there isn't Sasquatch in North America.

Not this philosophical absurdity again. You do know, I hope, that you can't "prove" a negative. For example you can't prove I didn't see the flying purple people eater materialize in my living room and eat the sofa and then vanish in a puff of smoke leaving the sofa behind.

This is a common technique of trying to reverse the onus. Sorry but it is not the responsibility of skeptics to prove that Bigfoot does not exist, (An impossibility.), but it is the responsibility of those who make the positive claim Bigfoot exists to prove he does.

So a guy with a dubious past decides to shoot a bigfoot movie. He has a friend dress up in an Indian costume but they don't have a bigfoot costume for this bigfoot movie. Later they are out not far from a logging road in an area frequented by a bigfoot track hoaxer. Without trying, they stumble upon a real bigfoot and shoot a few seconds of footage. When they get back home, the guy parades the film around like PT Barnum complete with an actor portraying his sidekick. The original film is then lost. Attempting to gather more evidence of bigfoot, they guy tries to return to the original location but misses it by 8000 miles.

Seems legit.

Roger Patterson was a genius in creating a whole new brand of 'wishful thinking'.

This is as far as I'm going with this, and I believe scientist feel the same way...

Quote:

The evidence that does exist supporting the survival of such a large, prehistoric ape-like creature has been attributed to hoaxes or delusion rather than to sightings of a genuine creature.[7] In a 1996 USA Today article, Washington State zoologist John Crane said, "There is no such thing as Bigfoot. No data other than material that's clearly been fabricated has ever been presented."[90] In addition, scientists cite the fact that Bigfoot is alleged to live in regions unusual for a large, nonhuman primate,...

Quote:

Mainstream scientists do not consider the subject of Bigfoot an area of credible science[313] and there have been a limited number of formal scientific studies of Bigfoot.

As with other proposed megafauna cryptids, climate and food supply issues would make such a creature's survival in reported habitats unlikely.[315] Great apes have not been found in the fossil record in the Americas, and no Bigfoot remains are known to have been found. The breeding population of such an animal would be so large that it would account for many more purported sightings than currently occur, making the existence of such an animal an almost certain impossibility.

There was a time in the past when the JREF PGF thread was really about the PGF.

It isn't anymore.

It's a fuzzy film of a guy in a monkey suit, made by a shady, shifty fellow who announced he was going to make a monkey movie. Unless there's some new intel about the monkey suit, the guy, the shifty fellow, or fuzziness, I don't know what's left to discuss.

__________________Looking forward to the Trump Presidential Library. A putting green. Recipes for chocolate cake. A live Twitter feed for visitors to post on. A little black book w the phone numbers of porn stars. You're in and out in five minutes.

It's a fuzzy film of a guy in a monkey suit, made by a shady, shifty fellow who announced he was going to make a monkey movie. Unless there's some new intel about the monkey suit, the guy, the shifty fellow, or fuzziness, I don't know what's left to discuss.

Maybe you are too new here to understand. A member for 5 years only. We used to talk about the PGF as being a hoax film instead of talking about it as a hoax film that should never be discussed because it is a hoax film.

__________________Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

We used to talk about the PGF as being a hoax film instead of talking about it as a hoax film that should never be discussed because it is a hoax film.

Yes, yes, it's a film of a guy in a monkey suit. I knew this way back when it first came out and I was just a young-un. It can be discussed until the footies come home, but I can't see how derails are avoidable given the fact there isn't much new to talk about. Unless you have something.

Do you?

__________________Looking forward to the Trump Presidential Library. A putting green. Recipes for chocolate cake. A live Twitter feed for visitors to post on. A little black book w the phone numbers of porn stars. You're in and out in five minutes.

We used to talk about the PGF and post frames from it and talk some more. A gif would pop up from the promoters and we would talk some more. There was active banter going on between PGF belief and PGF skepticism.

That doesn't happen here anymore. It has changed. Something significant has changed. The PGF thread used to be the most popular Bigfoot thread on JREF. It isn't anymore.

__________________Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

We used to talk about the PGF and post frames from it and talk some more. A gif would pop up from the promoters and we would talk some more. There was active banter going on between PGF belief and PGF skepticism.

That doesn't happen here anymore. It has changed. Something significant has changed. The PGF thread used to be the most popular Bigfoot thread on JREF. It isn't anymore.

Many proponents pimp the PGF as their best evidence, yet few come here to promote or even defend it as of late. Is this indicative of a lack of confidence in the PGF as good evidence, or a lack of confidence in proponents who might defend it?

If the PGF is dying as a symbol, isn't bigfootery terminal as well? It doesn't seem possible on the surface, but . . .

__________________Looking forward to the Trump Presidential Library. A putting green. Recipes for chocolate cake. A live Twitter feed for visitors to post on. A little black book w the phone numbers of porn stars. You're in and out in five minutes.

We used to post frames (or little gifs) from the PGF and talk about those as being the elements from which the authenticity or fabrication could be derived. It was how arguments were created and defended or attacked. Now it's simply that the PGF is fake and you can skip all of that old frame-by-frame stuff.

Quote:

Yes, yes, it's a film of a guy in a monkey suit. I knew this way back when it first came out and I was just a young-un. It can be discussed until the footies come home, but I can't see how derails are avoidable given the fact there isn't much new to talk about. Unless you have something.

Do you?

My newest thing on the PGF is interest in the specific very shiny black synthetic fur material and how it created illusions of musculature and overall form.

__________________Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

My newest thing on the PGF is interest in the specific very shiny black synthetic fur material and how it created illusions of musculature and overall form.

Well, good luck with that. I'm not being flip, either.

__________________Looking forward to the Trump Presidential Library. A putting green. Recipes for chocolate cake. A live Twitter feed for visitors to post on. A little black book w the phone numbers of porn stars. You're in and out in five minutes.

Why do you think, what's your best explanation for the bald fact that there is nothing in the North American fossil record, no biological entity in the natural history of North America that matches the guy in the suit the pattysuit the thing in the PGF.? Not one thing that is even close to a 9-ft monkey? Where are the animals that match? **** the plural, how about just one?

__________________Looking forward to the Trump Presidential Library. A putting green. Recipes for chocolate cake. A live Twitter feed for visitors to post on. A little black book w the phone numbers of porn stars. You're in and out in five minutes.

I love how they took the black image blob over the mouth in the full-frame, and in the Cibachrome, turned it into a smile.
The black image blob is clearly visible in the full frame right over where the imaginary mouth-line is.

__________________"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic